Search results

This chapter situates our study of the organisation and regulation of prison life in Myanmar. With broad brush strokes, we introduce the country context and describe the pre-colonial and colonial history of Myanmar prisons. We unpack and justify the book’s core analytic themes, describing how we will answer questions about how authority is distributed and enacted within prisons; how power is embodied and embedded in mundane social and institutional relations; and how historical relations of penal duress endure (even) under conditions of socio-political transformation. Further, we introduce how our interview-based account of the organisation, regulation and experience of prison life during the (now terminated) transition from overt military rule to disciplined democracy provides crucial insight into the current situation of thousands of people from all walks of life imprisoned since the military coup in February 2021.

How can philosophers contribute to the resolution of the current prison crisis in the United States, and what sorts of philosophical work should activists make use of in their efforts to address that crisis? This paper examines two periods of prison reform in the 20th century, to indicate the problematic role that traditional theories of the moral justification of punishment have had in the history of reform effects have played. I argue that moral theories of punishment are not the best vehicle for addressing the prison crisis; the approaches suggested by critical social theory are more promising.

This chapter restates the key points of our argument and considers some of the implications of our findings and analysis with reference to notions of ‘transition’ and ‘political imprisonment’. At the same time, this chapter broadens the analytic frame. In the light of the foregoing interview-based accounts, we elaborate upon the relationship between prison and politics as revealed at the interface between prison and society and prison and history. And we return to the present moment of revolutionary struggle and examine the specific ways the contemporary criminal justice system and the prison have been weaponised by the State Administrative Council with nefarious effects. Our final plea is for further research on the dynamics and effects of penal practice in Southeast Asia and for increased recognition of the ongoing injustices facing the people of Myanmar within the confines of a carceral state.

The chapter “Books Open Worlds for People Behind Bars” by Gerhard Peschers gives an insight into library services in correctional facilities in Germany on different levels, ranging from local best practice examples (e.g., Berlin, Bremen, Dortmund, and Würzburg) via regional experiences – focusing on longstanding experiences in North Rhine-Westphalia, in particular the outstanding former Münster prison library which was awarded the German national Library Prize “Library of the Year 2007” – and nationwide subjects to grown internationality based on long-term integration into the library community. Fundamental issues include history and the legal basis of prison libraries as well as practical experiences on various levels of responsibility and its diverse scope of tasks, such as collection development, data processing, interior design, events, and cooperation with city libraries.

The outlook provides the state of play and the challenges regarding digitalization for the development of prison libraries.

Finally, the author’s dream of the book tree on the prison wall, which found international resonance, invites you to share the vision of dialog and tolerance across dividing walls.

This article examines a range of issues associated with gangs in incarcerated settings. We begin by examining the similarities and differences between street and prison gangs, and differentiating them from other types of criminal groups. Next, we focus on the emergence and growth of gangs in prison, including patterns and theoretical explanations. Importantly, we draw theoretical linkages between differing perspectives on gang emergence and gang violence. We also present administrative and official responses to gangs in prison. Finally, we discuss the movement from prison to the street, examining the difficulties that former prisoners face when re‐entering communities.

Most offender narrative being studied has been in oral forms, produced in the reciprocal process of researcher-(ex) offender interviews. This chapter offers an introduction to a variation of offender narrative study within the prison and rehabilitation context: the narrative of written autobiography. Since the early 1940s, Chinese reform institutions have required written autobiographies from new admitters, provided with clear presubscripted guidelines of instructions as well as postcensorship. For this chapter, we trace back and analyse this model based on 28 prisoners' autobiographies in mainland China between 2007 and 2009, as well as archive documents in different historical periods. We have found that the mandatory offender autobiographies are highly functional writings with clear requirements that embody the existing power structure. We have also found considerable commonality with findings in Western contexts on the presence and problems of narrative compliance in rehabilitation. We argue that narrative criminology should further engage in understanding the practice of narrative censorship and co-authorship in criminal justice processes, as it takes on different forms in different historical–social contexts.

The central hypothesis of the chapter is that Brazilian colonialism and slavery produced different material conditions or different governmentalities, from those at the base of the disciplinary project of the Global North, conditions that re-signified the penitentiary reform proposal. This chapter is structured into five sections: the first section introduces the hypothesis that the houses of correction were not the institutions that originated the Brazilian penitentiary system. The following section develops this idea based on an analysis of the social and economic dimensions of Brazil’s colonial formation. Unlike the global North, which officially envisioned the penitentiary as the institutional foundation of a democratic society, the penitentiary in Brazil was first envisioned as a mere symbol of modernity, then as an instrument for preserving order. The third section describes how the first prisons emerged without industrialization and how the material conditions for a prison reform discourse based on discipline remained absent. The fourth section indicates the inapplicability of the original conception of discipline in a context without Protestantism, presenting the Jesuit experience as the one closest to a project of moral reform and constraint to work. Being absent the category of disciplinary power in its original form, at least regarding its economic dimension, the national penitentiary project was born from the dungeons where public and private power overlapped for the corporal punishment of the enslaved. The last section analyzes the importation of the penal reform discourse and its adaptation in the context immediately following the abolition of slavery in 1888.